Intelligence Overshadowed: Israel’s Grand Strategy in the Face of Hamas’s Unexpected Assault

OPINION — The history of intelligence in the modern era is closely intertwined with failures of early warnings and unexpected strategic events. These include the Nazi Germany invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa), the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Yom Kippur War, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

This somber list grew on October 7th with the violent attack at the Israeli-Gaza border. A sudden assault by the Hamas organization left Israel unprepared, leading to a significant loss of life and unprecedented destruction. Undoubtedly, this intelligence oversight will be scrutinized and analyzed for years to come. However, without downplaying the magnitude of this intelligence lapse or absolving Israel’s intelligence services of their responsibilities, Hamas’ unexpected assault and its aftermath also illuminate the grave repercussions when sound intelligence intersects with political agendas.

The politicization of intelligence stands as a paramount concern in the realm of national security, especially in the context of state-level intelligence. There are numerous instances where politicians have either misused intelligence assessments, disclosed classified information for political gains, influenced or modified intelligence outputs, or simply overlooked them altogether. Many in the U.S. will undoubtedly recall allegations surrounding the manipulated use of intelligence related to the presence (or absence) of WMD in Iraq and the associated intelligence assessment shortcomings. Additionally, the evident skepticism, if not outright distrust, shown by former President Donald Trump towards the American intelligence community serves as another notable instance.

The disparity often observed between a leader’s perception of reality and the portrayal by intelligence officials arises from divergent perspectives. Whereas a leader aims to shape reality, an intelligence official strives to depict it with impartiality (at least in theory). While intelligence professionals primarily focus on adversaries and their environment, leaders must also weigh political considerations.

---

It’s not just for the President anymore. Cipher Brief Subscriber+Members have access to their own Open Source Daily Brief, keeping you up to date on global events impacting national security.  It pays to be a Subscriber+Member.

---

The recent strategic surprise in the Gaza Strip experienced by Israel follows a similar pattern.

Recent revelations indicate that the political leadership received numerous warnings via Israel’s intelligence agencies in the weeks, days, and even hours leading up to the attack. For example, there are accounts of Egypt conveying warning information to Israel mere days before the onset of the conflict, and the Shin Bet acquiring specific information just hours prior to the attack. However, these indications were dismissed by the political leadership, being perceived as non-alarming cues rather than urgent warnings.

Drawing from my experience as a former intelligence officer and an expert on intelligence and national security, I can affirm that failures in strategic and operational intelligence (though not at the tactical level) rarely arise from an absence of information. Instead, they result from either misinterpreting available information or neglecting it.

Over recent years, Israel has been inundated with warnings from Hamas, detailing plans for major attacks in the Gaza perimeter and threats of abductions, especially post the 2021 Operation Guardian of the Walls. Subsequently, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad collaborated on a drill simulating an invasion of enemy territories, assaults on military fortifications, urban combat, and the capture of Israeli soldiers. This exercise culminated in a statement by one of the leaders of Hamas’ military wing, Az al-Din al-Qassam, asserting, “Prioritizing the release of prisoners tops our joint operations agenda. The walls and patrols established by the adversary along the Strip’s border won’t safeguard them.”

Roughly three weeks prior to the conflict, Hamas showcased a drill that featured practicing with a remote command center, distracting with rocket salvos, penetrating the fence, swiftly advancing with vehicles, reaching communities in the Gaza envelope, infiltrating homes, and executing residents. These instances are merely the tip of the iceberg.

The agreed conception among the Israeli political and security establishment in recent years has been that despite past declarations by Prime Minister Netanyahu that he intended to topple Hamas rule in the Gaza Strip – his actions in practice led to nurturing the terrorist organization’s mechanisms of control and funding the war machine that carried out the murderous attack on communities in the northwestern Negev.

In fact, Netanyahu said this explicitly. “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support strengthening Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” Netanyahu was quoted, adding: “This is part of our strategy to differentiate between the Palestinians in Gaza and the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria.”

The sentiment was later relayed during briefings with journalists and by individuals close to Netanyahu. “Remember this statement: Benjamin Netanyahu keeps Hamas intact to ensure that the entirety of the State of Israel doesn’t transform into a Gaza envelope. If Hamas were to collapse, there’s a possibility that Abu-Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority – SH) and the Palestinians would take over the Strip. If he were to govern, left-leaning voices might advocate for negotiations, a political resolution, and the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. This is the primary reason Netanyahu refrains from targeting Hamas’ leadership; any other explanation is just bullshit.”

The stance was further underscored in Netanyahu’s interviews over recent years. For instance, in 2018, during a briefing to Israeli journalists, he posited that one strategy to mitigate attacks on southern communities was by directing millions in Qatari donations into the Gaza Strip. In a 2019 conversation with Time magazine, he openly acknowledged being cognizant of the fact that Hamas “diverts substantial international aid money to transform tunnels into instruments of terror.” In yet another interaction on Israeli Army Radio, Netanyahu expressed his reluctance to overthrow Hamas, citing the absence of any alternative political group prepared to govern the Strip.

This overarching strategy was largely influenced by Netanyahu’s objective to marginalize the peace process and the concept of Palestinian statehood. By forming alliances with the most radical factions within Israeli society and promoting them to ministerial roles, he acted on the conviction that weakening the Palestinian Authority’s hold in the West Bank, while strengthening Hamas in Gaza, would benefit his settler associates. To garner the backing of his extreme coalition allies during his corruption trials, Netanyahu fulfilled their chief desire: stalling any progress in Palestinian discussions and systematically eroding the Palestinian Authority’s sway in the West Bank, leading to its potential disbandment.

---

Looking for a way to get ahead of the week in cyber and tech?  Sign up for the Cyber Initiatives Group Sunday newsletter to quickly get up to speed on the biggest cyber and tech headlines and be ready for the week ahead. Sign up today.

---

As a result, despite consistent intelligence, in an effort to protect the interests of West Bank settlers, both Netanyahu and Defense Minister Galant from the Likud party allowed the IDF to divert a substantial amount of its resources to the West Bank. This shift in focus compromised readiness in other crucial areas, notably Gaza, even in the face of accumulating evidence pointing to an imminent Hamas assault.

In a final broader perspective, Israel’s comprehensive governing system met its downfall on the morning of October 7, and that too was the direct actions of the political leadership. This breakdown wasn’t limited to military reserves – it spanned transportation, medical services, logistics, civilian communication, inter-agency coordination, and more. At the heart of this crisis was Netanyahu, who, in his desperation to avoid legal ramifications for his indictments, provided his political allies with unprecedented privileges, ensuring a safeguard that might shield him from imprisonment. Ministries became populated with ill-suited, inexperienced individuals, who subsequently brought on board bureaucrats lacking essential professional expertise. This endemic corruption, fostered under Netanyahu’s tenure, insidiously weakened the very foundations upon which Israeli society had been built.

Let us not mistake: Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad have committed atrocities and should pay for their horrendous crimes. However, it is crucial that any investigative committee set up post-conflict doesn’t merely zero in on the shortcomings of the security apparatus and intelligence services. It should also, perhaps even more critically, spotlight the missteps of the political leadership, especially the individual who led as Prime Minister for an unparalleled total of 16 years, with an almost continuous tenure since 2009.

The recent turmoil in Israel should be a poignant global reminder that even the most sophisticated and precise intelligence loses its value when those at the helm prioritize political agendas over national well-being.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals. 

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field?  Send it to [email protected] for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief